No Smoking in CA City

[mr.trooper]

Who do you all think you are to think you can know what I do and dont believe in based on the FIRST posting Iv ever made in the political forum?

You are all so adamant that I am the worst kind of right-disrespecting scum. Iv even been called Hittler just because I think I should have the option to breath smoke free air. Who is disrespecting whos rights here? If you have the "right" to smoke, then I have the "right" not to. When you smoke around me, you violate that "right".

I dont have a problem with smoking itself; All my friends smoke. Most of the co-workers Iv ever had at any job smoked. What gets me is the attitude. Not one of them would put out their cigarets for me, even when asked politely; Not even the people Iv been close to for years! More comonly, they smoke an extra cig just to spite me. What the hell? You will have to forgive me for not speaking very highly of them. They are slowling killing me, and they couldn't care less.

The point of my earlyer posts was to try and point out that smoking is entirely a privilage. It is not a right in any way. If you deem it one under the right to the "pursuit of happyness", then the same can be said for almost any activity. What about my right to "life"?

My biggest question is why you all are so convinced that smoking is a right of the people?

 

[Pafrmu]

Deleted

 

[ryan in maine]

I apologize, Art. Despite my sidebar with c yeager I stand by my original comments that a smoker should be free to smoke without any government interference, that I in fact, would not call for laws against it because bans and laws are extreme and not the ideal way to get a smoker to stop smoking. I think smokers should have their own good judgement and morals.

After I reply to 10volt, if I may, I wont discuss my personal issues with smoking again.

From 10volt:

C'mon man be realistic if a bus or diesel truck goes by you do you yell at the driver and tell him your killing me, pollution and stress is what kills most people and our atmosphere is hardly affected by cigarette smoke. Your illness is also affected by the public also because if you do get an attack and nobody helps you, are you gonna march for a new bill that people have to help the sick. Sorry for your illness but you should be more aware of your surrounding's because the general public has no idea what you have. I can see how mad you would get but it's not the publics fault for being ignorant to your health.

It just so happens, that pollution from vehicles does not trigger my asthma. And, tho I'm not going to start a march over it, I believe ppl should actually help the sick in public (tho not by requirement of law). Most ppl have the good morals and character to do it on their own tho.

That's why I said I would only ask a smoker to put their cigarette out around me. I'd expect them to be understanding and say "Hey no problem man, sorry if it bothers you." but alas, I'm dreaming apparently, as they would expect me to breathe their smoke in and keep my mouth shut.

What the hell is that supposed to mean what about perfumes and all the other junk people wear as deoderants, I find that crap more offensive than cigarette smoke. I also pay for guys like you too with health issues so just don't blame smokers, tobacco has been here longer than you and I and it's a natural living plant as mother nature intended. Perfumes and all the other crap is a man made offense I think they should outlaw those things in public....

I dislike perfumey and overwhelming scents, as they can sometimes trigger my asthma. I can't smell a person's deodorant, however. I don't dislike it as much as cigarette smoke, as it serves a more noble purpose (covering up stanky ppl). It might be a natural plant, but I don't have a problem with it growing in nature. My problem comes when ppl are burning it and creating smoke from it. Then again, bonfires were never my friend either. But fortunately, I can choose to not attend bonfires. I cannot however, avoid cigarette smoke in public.

I do not want laws to outlaw any of these things.

I just wish ppl would exercise more courtesy and morals when partaking in something that effects other ppl around them.

The way ppl are acting, I fully expect that next, ppl will be telling me they should be able to drive 100mph past schools @ 3 o'clock PM. They'll complain about those damned school children always walking home and the damn soccer moms parked along the sidewalk. Damn them all, they shouldn't be allowed on the streets 'cause I want to drive 100mph and all they do is slow me down and make me late!

 

[Fletchette]

You are all so adamant that I am the worst kind of right-disrespecting scum

Not all of us.

My biggest question is why you all are so convinced that smoking is a right of the people?

In general, I believe that what I do with my body is my business so long as I do not violate anyone else's rights. I think drug use should be legalized because of this basic premise. Furthermore, I think drug use's impact on society would go down dramatically (not cease to exist, but go down) as large pharmacuitical companies would produce pure drugs and drive illegal dealers out of business. Gangs would lose their funding immediately. But I digress...

Back to the freedom aspect. State governments and local communities do have the right to restrict public smoking via the Tenth Amendment. Personally, I think that is overly restrictive and simply a mistake, but not unconstitutional.

However, banning smoking on one's own property is unconstitutional, as would be forcing me to have guests I don't happen like for whatever reason. Just like nudity, I accept the practice being outlawed in public but I certainly don't think the govenment should throw me in jail for taking a shower in my own house!

 

[Jammer Six]

However, banning smoking on one's own property is unconstitutional, as would be forcing me to have guests I don't happen like for whatever reason.

Not even close. Where do these ideas come from?

It is perfectly constitutional to ban smoking marijuana on your property, and many laws in many states have done exactly that.

There is nothing holy or sacrosanct about your property, and the laws don't change merely because you stand on it.

Banning smoking on your property would be completely constitutional, just as banning pot smoking on it is now.

It doesn't matter whether it's pot or tobacco- what matters is that it is, and will be for the forseable future, completely constitutional to ban certain actions, whether they take place on your property or anywhere else.

It adds a lot of credibility if you understand what constitutes constitutional before you use the word "unconstitutional".

 

[Camp David]

Not to be crude but what if someone is in public and farts? Does that qualify under the anti-smoking ordinance? I mean... do the do-gooder enforcers of this ordinance have gas meters and measure gas output to detect tobacco buring smoke and gas emissions? Couldn't someone be singled out and discriminated against unfairly due to high methane emissions? That sounds like a perfect class action suit right there....

 

[Fletchette]

Quote:
However, banning smoking on one's own property is unconstitutional, as would be forcing me to have guests I don't happen like for whatever reason.

Not even close. Where do these ideas come from?

It is perfectly constitutional to ban smoking marijuana on your property, and many laws in many states have done exactly that.

There is nothing holy or sacrosanct about your property, and the laws don't change merely because you stand on it.

Banning smoking on your property would be completely constitutional, just as banning pot smoking on it is now.

It doesn't matter whether it's pot or tobacco- what matters is that it is, and will be for the forseable future, completely constitutional to ban certain actions, whether they take place on your property or anywhere else.

It adds a lot of credibility if you understand what constitutes constitutional before you use the word "unconstitutional".

I assure you that I understand this concept. Please bear with me.

Citing the banning of pot smoking on one's property is a non sequitur. Did it occur to you that perhaps banning pot smoking on one's property is unconstitutional? I believe it is.

Citing the Ninth Amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. - smoking pot is clearly a 'possible' right.

Citing the Tenth Amendment - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. - smoking pot clearly is not the domian of the Federal goverment. Such Federal laws are indeed "unconstitutional".

As for the legality of the individual states banning the smoking of pot, I'll cite the body of the Constitution - ..."right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." If smoking pot makes one happy, and the action of smoking pot does not harm anyone else, then where is the basis that it should be outlawed? The state cannot (well, 'should not' in an ideal world) outlaw actions unless such action causes harm to another. Should the state outlaw the driving of 'Chevy pickup trucks', simply because the locals prefer Ford? That isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution, but clearly such a law is unconstitutional in that it is an abuse of government power.

In a nutshell, the government should allow, and even protect the right of citizens, to do as they please (pursue happiness) so long as they do not infringe on others' rights.

Welcome to the Libertarian line of thought.

 

[Jammer Six]

Following this rather desperate line of "constitutional" logic, murder is clearly a constitutional right.

It isn't prohibited by the constitution, however all states have a rather strict law against it.

The constitution guarantees a right to life, however, we put people to death. That's spike one, and spike two is that it also gurantees a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Now, since we put people to death, lock them up, and prevent people from parking their cars higglety pigglety, (a thing that would allow them unfettered pursuit of their happiness) how can all this be legal?

First, because all constitutional rights except the right against self incrimination is subject to regulation. All of them.

The states have the right to make laws and regulations that govern life within their boundaries, as long as they follow a constitutional procedure, which they do.

If that procedure creates an unconstitutional law, there is a remedy for that condition.

Pot smokers have not availed themselves of it, in spite of a long history of enforcement of law against them.

There are two possibilities: one is that the laws against pot (and, therefore, against tobacco, laudenum and spitting in public) are perfectly constitutional (they are) or, two, that pot smokers are all losers, who can't muster the self discipline, money or focus to hire a lawyer.

I don't know which is true.

The constitution is a source of law. It is not, and never was intended to be, the only source of law.

It merely provides an easy excuse for those that don't really wish to understand the law to stop reading and get angry. And, like all partial, fragmented understandings, it provides it's own vehicle to do so.

The WAC prevents me from carrying in a school here in Washington. It is an administrative code, but it is law. It is every bit as binding on me as the federal constitution, the RCW, or the Washington State constitution.

Outlawing the smoking of tobacco, by you, in your living room would be every bit as constitutional as outlawing pot, rape or murder.

Those of us who recognize ALL sources of law are amused by what constitutionalist consider law.

It's like calling a framer a carpenter.

 

[Fletchette]

Following this rather desperate line of "constitutional" logic, murder is clearly a constitutional right.

It isn't prohibited by the constitution, however all states have a rather strict law against it.

The constitution guarantees a right to life, however, we put people to death. That's spike one, and spike two is that it also gurantees a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Now, since we put people to death, lock them up, and prevent people from parking their cars higglety pigglety, (a thing that would allow them unfettered pursuit of their happiness) how can all this be legal?

First, because all constitutional rights except the right against self incrimination is subject to regulation. All of them.

You have come to an incorrect conclusion. Putting people to death is against the law (even for the state to do it) unless the accused has had their "right to life" restricted through due process. You make it sound as if the state can kill anyone at any time because they feel like it.

Murder, is a crime against another person (the victim). The state has a duty to punish the murderer in order to protect the rights of others. Since the victim is dead, it is to deter other people from murder. The point I am trying to make is that 'murder' requires a victim. Then it can indeed be a crime.

Pot smoking, try as you may, does not have a 'victim', that is why your analogy fails.

If that procedure creates an unconstitutional law, there is a remedy for that condition.

Pot smokers have not availed themselves of it, in spite of a long history of enforcement of law against them.

There are two possibilities: one is that the laws against pot (and, therefore, against tobacco, laudenum and spitting in public) are perfectly constitutional (they are) or, two, that pot smokers are all losers, who can't muster the self discipline, money or focus to hire a lawyer.

I don't know which is true.

There is a third possibility that you did not address - the government is violating their own laws (it wouldn't be the first time). The recent Federal case of a woman in Washington state (which does not have a state law against pot smoking) growing pot in her backyard and smoking it herself (not selling it) was a prime example. The Federal government clearly has no business administering such a law due to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, but the Supreme Court found her guilty through 'creative interpretation' of the commerce clause. Such 'creative interpretations' of the Constitution will take away our right to keep and bear arms unless we put a stop to it.

The constitution is a source of law. It is not, and never was intended to be, the only source of law.

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of this nation. If you are referring to foreign law, I simply flat-out disagree with you.

It merely provides an easy excuse for those that don't really wish to understand the law to stop reading and get angry. And, like all partial, fragmented understandings, it provides it's own vehicle to do so.

Yawn.

The WAC prevents me from carrying in a school here in Washington. It is an administrative code, but it is law. It is every bit as binding on me as the federal constitution, the RCW, or the Washington State constitution.

So if your WAC passed and administrative code requiring you to wear a Star of David you would happily comply?

Outlawing the smoking of tobacco, by you, in your living room would be every bit as constitutional as outlawing pot, rape or murder.

Again, I disagree. Rape and murder have very clear victims. The state has the right to outlaw these actions because protecting citizens' rights is the primary (and perhaps only) reason for government to exist:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Note that our Founders did NOT say, "we form governments to enact one person's vision of morality".

Those of us who recognize ALL sources of law are amused by what constitutionalist consider law.

To those of us who actually believe in the principals that this nation was founded on are appalled by those who pick and choose which laws to follow and enforce.

 

[mr.trooper]

In general, I believe that what I do with my body is my business so long as I do not violate anyone else's rights. I think drug use should be legalized because of this basic premise. Furthermore, I think drug use's impact on society would go down dramatically (not cease to exist, but go down) as large pharmacuitical companies would produce pure drugs and drive illegal dealers out of business. Gangs would lose their funding immediately. But I digress...

Back to the freedom aspect. State governments and local communities do have the right to restrict public smoking via the Tenth Amendment. Personally, I think that is overly restrictive and simply a mistake, but not unconstitutional.

However, banning smoking on one's own property is unconstitutional, as would be forcing me to have guests I don't happen like for whatever reason. Just like nudity, I accept the practice being outlawed in public but I certainly don't think the govenment should throw me in jail for taking a shower in my own house!

Thank you very much.

Also let me say that I did not initialy realize that the ban effected smoking in ones own home; I assumed it was another "no smoking in public" type of ban. While it is true that I dont like being very close to smokers, it is in my opinion far too restrictive to say that people may not smoke in their own homes. Although the state DOES have the constitutional authority to do so, I would not be inclined to take regulation nearly so far.

 

[gc70]

Not to be crude but what if someone is in public and farts? Does that qualify under the anti-smoking ordinance? I mean... do the do-gooder enforcers of this ordinance have gas meters and measure gas output to detect tobacco buring smoke and gas emissions? Couldn't someone be singled out and discriminated against unfairly due to high methane emissions? That sounds like a perfect class action suit right there....

No, flatulence would not qualify under the anti-smoking regulation, but would count under the Kyoto Protocols as greenhouse-gas emissions.

 

[gc70]

Banning smoking on your property would be completely constitutional, just as banning pot smoking on it is now.

Ummm, not quite.

Pot smoking is subject to a general ban, thus it is banned in any and all locations. Such a ban is constitutional because it applies universally and is non-discriminatory.

Banning tobacco smoking on some specific properties, but not others, could be unconstitutional. Tobacco smoking is generally a legal activity, subject to specific restrictions. Depending on the legal basis and rationale for banning tobacco smoking, and the specific areas covered, a smoking ban can either be constitutional or unconstitutional. A smoking ban that was constructed in a clearly and unjustifiably unequal and discriminatory manner would be unconstitutional.

 

[gunsmith]

when I just quit smoking

I was sitting in a restaurant in the non smoking section, I was a scruffy looking guy so the watress must of thought I misakenly sat in the non smoking section, and she gave an ashtray to the person next to me and he lit up, I informed him that he was in the non smiking section and said "the waitress gave me an ashtray" I said in response in the agitated voice of the newly quit nicotine fiend...."yeah!? the waitress gave me a knife"

he moved, personally I cant stand smoke...from ugly people, If a girl looks like jessica simpson she can smoke in my bed if she likes! (as long as she isn't wearing perfume, I'm allergic)......

but enough of thread driftingthe smokers in cali just don't get out and vote. it's their own fault. they can move to NV, here doctors give a ciggarette to new born babies to see if they can breathe, they used to give them the traditional swat on the butt, but NV kids are born with sidearms

 

[Jammer Six]

Putting people to death is against the law (even for the state to do it) unless the accused has had their "right to life" restricted through due process.

You missed my point. Deliberately, I believe.

I'm not talking about the death penalty, victims or due process. Those are your red herrings. You've mistaken me for an easy target.

My point is this, and only this: the states have the legal right to establish specific laws that govern specific behaviors that are not enumerated in the federal constitution.

Once such example is rape, another is child pornography, another is prostitution.

Nothing in the constitution about any of them, yet all the laws covering those crimes are constitutional.

Another example is pot smoking.

The presence of a victim is irrelevant, a criminal statute is a criminal statute, it is either a misdemeanor or a felony, there is no discrimination between a "victimless" crime and any other crime.

All those statutes are legal, because the constitution simply is not the only source of law.

A law, therefore, prohibiting smoking in your home, like the laws that prohibit pot smoking in your home would be completely constitutional.

The lack of a victim has nothing to do with it, and is an attempt at misdirection on your part.

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of this nation.

Yes. Exactly. It is also one of many sources of law, all equally relevant to life in the U.S.

Try rolling through a red light, and you will discover another source of law, and at that moment, it will have a far greater impact on you than the constitution.

So if your WAC passed and administrative code requiring you to wear a Star of David you would happily comply?

To use your word, yawn.

To add a summation:

The rest of your red herrings are boring. It actually sounds like you're talking to at least three different people.

Make me angry, annoy me mildly, make me laugh, but don't bore me.

Boring is merely embarrassing.

 

[Cellar Dweller]

Be careful what you wish for...

A law, therefore, prohibiting smoking in your home, like the laws that prohibit pot smoking in your home would be completely constitutional.

Now THAT would be an interesting law indeed. If a State prohibits smoking in public places, public-accessible places and the utmost in "private" property yet does not ban the sale or possession of tobacco...legal product, illegal to do it anywhere. The State is loathe to ban tobacco outright because they don't want to give away a nice revenue base. It's a mixed message though. Maybe it gets appealed to the Supreme Court but in the meantime...

With a significant win the rabid anti-smokers are closing in on total victory and at the next legislative session tobacco is banned within that State. Except now, the State is interfering with interstate commerce (because the other 49 haven't banned tobacco) so off it goes to the Supremes for sure...

Ouch. Would anyone like to see that case go forward? What would be the chances of a 9-0 slapdown and no snarky comments that mention loopholes that the State could try? If the State triumphs, the floodgates are open for regulating EVERY aspect of one's life and NOTHING is off limits, because the product and the activity WERE legal and the government was merely regulating the place of activity..."interstate commerce" gets twisted for convienience again. If the State loses but there are dissenters, then the law gets rewritten and passed until it satisfies the Supremes "because the public (aka rabid antis) demands it."

Pot is illegal, therefore smoking it in one's home is illegal. Tobacco is legal, therefore smoking it in one's home should remain legal.

Definitions: "Normal" anti-smokers don't care if you're not smoking around them or leaving a mess behind. "Rabid" anti-smokers WANT tobacco consumption banned (yet smokers are expected to continue buying cigarettes with even more hefty taxes added).